studiot

I don't know who you are or what you are but I do know that you are consistently avoiding polite queries about your statements. I asked what was the point of your thread, as I cannot see one. I asked this with the intention of offering help since it is quite clear from your statement that you have only a rudimentary understanding of resonance in general and resonance in benzene in particular. In particular do you understand your statement The word 'basis' is a particular mathematical term used in the particular mathematical method employed (the LCAO method) which allows certain mathematical statements to be made. Do you understand the basis theorem? Secondly there are more terms than two involved in benzene. The Kekule forms you refer to are the dominant ones and referred to as the psi A terms. Ther are also psi B terms etc. Are you aware of these?

One thing I don't understand about this thread. What was the original question, hypothesis or proposition for discussion? post#1 appears more in the style of preaching to me.

Well we should start by treating the children as human beings (and individual ones at that) and not as some raw material or component to be processed on an aseembly line. The UK education system, once the 'envy of the world' has been almost totally destroyed by a headlong rush to follow the americans into a 'one size fits all' approach. I cannot find anything more illogical except, perhaps, the idea of 'one subject set fits all' Languages: For how many pupils is English not their first language, although in an english speaking school? Background: How many have had breakfast before coming to school or will go home to a proper meal?

Well since I was the only one to take you even half seriously and offer constructive discussion that is a strange reply. More especially since it is a direct violation of the rules of this forum; You are wasting your time and more especially my time. go well.

I am not arguing the validity of your 3 'laws' you seem to have enough discussion with others over that. What I am discussing is twofold. Firstly the idea that any 3 or 5 or whatever number of laws will be complete a set. Secondly your statement that all mathematical processes can be reduced to the integers. This is all I am going to address in this post. I know the famous statement "God created the integers and all else is the work of Man" and the idea that all we really have are the counting by adding one at a time are very persuasive but there are other processes in mathematics. Here is an expansion of the example already given. Say I have a bag of coloured balls with names painted on them. emily red fred red bob green william blue susan yellow peter green mary red and so on In mathematical terms the above list is technically a relation and moreover a particular type of relation called a function. It can be used to demonstrate the reflexive, transitive and symmetric properties of relations and functions. If we want a red ball we can choose emily or fred or mary. We can say for this purpose emily = fred and fred = mary therfore emily = mary thus demonstrating the transitive property of redness We demonstrate the symmetric property by noting that if emily = mary then mary = emily and so on. Not a number anywhere and note for instance that, unlike numbers, it does not matter whether mary comes at the top or bottom of the list ie order is unimportant. In case you feel that this is not mathematics try looking at the maths of fundamental particles (juanrga please don't get to clever here)

Because I'm not a conventional person. I read whatever I can find on the subject, then I start reasoning about it myself, I look at things in original ways, I re-arrange things until I see that they are related to other things, so concepts get merged with other concepts we already know about. That is perfectly fine and acceptable. However, whilst introducing your own notation and definitions is also fine if it leads to new insights, it is highly counterproductive to misuse existing as you are doing. You have misquoted several well established definitions so far, to the confusion of others. In particular concerning number systems and their applications: Then why did you say that all mathematical operations could NOT be defined over the natural numbers? I not only observed that there are mathematical operations that are independent of any number or number system I also provided several examples - although one counterexample would have been enough for disproof. I am perfectly willing to go through the conventional definitions with you. I would then be more than happy if you can then extend them to something useful as everyone would gain.

I am aware of how to derive more complicated number systems from simpler ones thank you. Why do you choose not to use the conventional definitions? That makes discussion really difficult and excessively protracted.

Actually this isn't strictly true. It is certainly true that the natural numbers are very important in mathematics and operations such as induction can be defined/described in terms of them. You should also be aware that there is a difference in mathematics between the natural numbers, which do not include zero, and the integers, which do. However there are operations that are independent of numbers of any sort. Translation, reflection as in 'the transitive property' and 'the reflexive property' are fundamental operations which are examples. There are many more, including some fundamental ones due to symmetries. There are other operations such as counting, which can be defined as putting into one to one correspondence with N, which are certainly defined over the natural numbers, but cannot be applied to all mathematical objects, some are uncountable. Having got that discussion on terminology out of the way let us fast forward from the ancient civilisations to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. You have not addressed my point on Russell's paradox and the universal set in relation to your proposition.

I'm sorry to tell you that if your reference genuinely states Godel as you have done, then you have been misled. Firstly the theorem applies to more than numbers it applies to any system of logic that conforms to the formal definition. In particular In a system of logic or mathematics there must be true but unprovable statements and the self consistency of such a system cannot be proven true within that system. You are implying from this that there must be a larger system which contains both the necessary proofs and the original system. However this is not guaranteed by the theorem. It does not preclude it either. Further the attempt to establish such a greater set, leads inevitable to an infinite series of such sets by application of the same theorem and finally to a Russell type paradox as I said. By all means discuss, but please be less condescending about it.

Whilst performing tasks the human body consumes around 100 watts. http://www.physicsfo...t=145043&page=2 However most of this goes to keeping the body and brain running rather than to external tasks. So the output whilst sitting typing at a keyboard will be at most 10 watts. If you convert all of this to power your light bulb you would never actually operate any keys so say you operate at 50% efficiency you can maybe extract 5 watts. Degrade this by the conversion efficiency to say 3 watts. However I think this to be a fatuous example which only goes to show proper engineering in disrepute and have the opposite effect to the desired one.

Yes it does, in standard London English it means that I disagree (politely). My understanding of Godel's theorem is that it leads to the opposite conclusion - that is there is no larger system that can contain everything. However it is up to you to demonstrate the correctness of your proposal not for me to provide 'facts etc' I am simply inviting you to test it against Godel's theorem. Since your set of propositions is a formal system in the Godel sense and allegedly covers everything, where would you place the proof of the self consistency and the true but unprovable facts? The danger of offering any form of universal set is that it runs into a Russel type paradox when Godel is applied.

Here is a link to optimal pH of soils for various plants. http://www.ces.ncsu....l/pHplants.html You should look up the pH of lemon juice, apple juice and peach juice, blood, seawater and other common substances. Then come back and we can talk about pH.

I beg to differ.

I didn't say that and I didn't mean that! It makes perfect sense, it is undefined. What doesn't make sense is applying rules defined for certain objects to objects for which they were not defined. This is what you should be avoiding, - not trying to do. When you are prepared to look properly at what others are saying ( and all here have so far only told part of the story) you will make progress. Untill then you will be at a brick wall like Zeno was two and a half thousand years ago. Consider the equation ab = 0 Now the normal rules we use state that either a = 0 or b = 0 or both. However there are systems of arithemtic where this is not true. You need to to study these to move on.

Does not Godel's Theorem invalidate your proposal?

Read what I said again, and don't look for a contradiction or a definition, real life or otherwise, because I didn't provide either. The whole point of my example was that 0/0 is undefined, not because it can't be or because it has only one definition, but because it has to many (an infinite number in fact). If you want a more mathematical example it's like asking 'what is the solution to the equation y = x ?'. go well

That's OK, I can take a hint, since you don't value anyone else's thoughts I will leave you to yours. go well

Here is a different viewpoint to consider. Let us say that I travel 0 miles in zero seconds. What is my speed. You assert it is 1 mph - which is true of course since at 1 mph the distance I travel in zero seconds = speed times time =1*0 = 0 miles. However the same would also be true if I travelled at 2 mph or 20 mph or any other speed. Therefore I can say that speed = distance /time for the case of 0/0 can be anything I want. Which is another way of saying it is indeterminate.

I am starting this thread as a response to the blog by Captain Refsmat. as I do not get on well with blogs. Two thoughts 1) There is another use of statistics that is totally usually ignored in such discussions and revalations. That of engineering statistics, where conditions are carfully controlled to give validity to the technique. This leads to the articles giving the false impression that statistical testing is generally invalid. 2) The is another recent populist book on the subject, which is the outcome of a BBC program series into the subject. The Tiger That Isn't Michael Blastland & Andrew Dilnot go well Edit http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68060-blog-post-capn-refsmmat-statistics-done-wrong-how-scientists-abuse-statistics/page__pid__693980#entry693980 Sorry Panic, you were quite right. I was going to do that and even had the link still on the clipboard, but I forgot.

The square root of -1 is excluded from the graph of y = x squared, yet we talk of i

A more productive mindset from you point of view would be "Why am I wrong and Science correct?" , rather than the other way round. You could then move forward from something as basic and uncontroversial as this to something where there is a genuine possibility of spotting something new. The problem with your pendulum analysis is quite simple. The velocity of the weight varies throughout its cycle. At A and B (top of the swing) the velocity is zero, as is the KE. the energy is all potential energy. At C the velocity is a maximum and the energy is all KE. The potential energy is zero. As the pendulum swings from the top of the swing towards the bottom, PE decreases and KE increases with the total remaining constant. As the pendulum swings from the bottom back towards the top KE decreases and PE increases with the total remaining constant.

GM potatoes news http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19000190

I was trying to be helpful in pointing you at a situation where it is acknowledged that the Lorenz force/electron particle model breaks down, but you seem to want to be argumentative about it, rather than reasearch for yourself. Yes silver may be diamagnetic but electrons are not. They don't care what sort of atom they are in and I am talking about a model that predicts the effect of a magnetic field on a travelling electron. Further the electron's motion is perpendicular to the applied magnetic field. It has negligible motion in the direction of the field that is the whole point of the Hall voltage. The Hall voltage is electrostatic. You are right in observing the only numeric data I have to hand is for conductors, but the Hall effect also appears in semiconductors with some equally anomalous results.

Hello pengkuan, Thank you for your thoughts, but you are still not appreciating the significance of what I am saying or correctly interpreting the influence of electric and magnetic forces on current flowing in conductors and semiconductors. Your diagrams are certainly ingenious, but there is a flaw. If, as you propose, the movement of the holes is because the electrons 'take the holes with them' this would imply that the direction of hole movement and electron movement is always the same in any current. We know this not to be the case and that, in fact, the normal movement of holes is in a direction opposite to that of the electron's movement. It is, however, easy to prove using the Lorenz formula, that when we apply a suitable magnetic field to a current with holes flowing one way and electrons the other, they are both deflected in the same direction. The charge carriers moving in the y direction are not in equilibrium - they are moving. The charge carriers do not actually move in the x direction (that of the Lorenz force) because they remain in equilibrium - held in place by the Hall voltage that is generated in the x direction. That, in itself, would be fine and dandy and the end of the story if all Hall voltages we of the same sign. But they are not. For silver and gold they are stronly positive, for aluminium and indium they are negative.

That's the whole point of it. If both holes and real electrons apparently move in the same direction, what drives the electrons that move in the opposite direction to vacate the hole sites?